Epson 4490 Scanner - Tests and Settings.

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by Harry Stottle, Oct 28, 2006.

  1. I have just put my first results from the Epson 4490 scanner on the
    following link. I have also included the settings I used on the scanner,
    to help anyone struggling to set the scanner up. This is using the
    supplied Epson Scan software, which as far as I can see, seems to be
    doing a pretty good job.

    http://www.photoscan.150m.com/
     
    Harry Stottle, Oct 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Harry Stottle

    marika Guest

    I enjoyed this
     
    marika, Oct 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Harry Stottle

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    Nice, I already have this scanner myself, and find it very good value
    indeed. I'm currently rescanning all my old photos off the negatives
    with it, and you can easily see the difference between a scan from a
    print and a negative. A well worthwhile purchase.
     
    Andy Hewitt, Oct 29, 2006
    #3

  4. In a way this is a sad situation.
    I mean -- I've been there and done that.

    I've got some slides and negatives that
    have been through three generations of
    film scanners.

    If you ever see one of your sharp negatives
    or slides scanned on (say) an LS-9000 or a
    drum scanner -- you're going to want to re-scan
    all your old stuff one more time.

    The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
    league.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Oct 29, 2006
    #4
  5. Harry Stottle

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    In my case, that isn't likely to happen.
    Indeed not, it wasn't being compared to any such, or anything else come
    to that, it was being shown for its own merits. If you can't afford to
    spend a four figured sum on a 'Pro' scanner, or indeed simply don't have
    the need to, then the 4490 is quite adequate for modest needs.

    A lot of my old negatives are now pretty shabby anyway, and I feel I've
    probably got the best I can out of them anyway. They are definitely
    better than the equally old prints I have, and scanning at higher
    resolutions isn't going to improve them much.

    For perfect picture quality, I now use a DSLR.
     
    Andy Hewitt, Oct 29, 2006
    #5
  6. Harry Stottle

    Guest Guest

    "For perfect picture quality, I now use a DSLR."
    I found your picture nice.
    What kind of DSLR are you using?
     
    Guest, Oct 29, 2006
    #6
  7. Harry Stottle

    Guest Guest

    "The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
    league"
    I hear you. Your photos gallery is impressive. Let see your league and
    compare it with the 4990 histogram for histogram.
     
    Guest, Oct 29, 2006
    #7

  8. ??? What exactly would you like to compare?

    IMO, there's no point comparing histograms,
    because color content is so variable and subjective.
    Lack of skill or care can easily screw up a histogram,
    even with the best of scanners. Furthermore (to
    some extent) histograms can be messed up (or
    fixed up) in post-processing.

    There is some point to comparing sharpness and
    resolution, which I have done (see URL below.)


    rafe b
    scan snippets:
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
     
    Raphael Bustin, Oct 29, 2006
    #8
  9. Harry Stottle

    - Guest

    old Franka folding camera at f16<<

    The old Franka is doing itself proud at 50 years!

    Doug
     
    -, Oct 29, 2006
    #9
  10. Harry Stottle

    Guest Guest

    ??? What exactly would you like to compare?

    A picture taking by the same camera and scanned with your scanner and then
    with the 4490.
    Also an old 120 black and white negative previewed at 8 bits and 16 bits
    gray scale And then scan at 600 - 2400 dpi and then enlarged. The quality
    of the enlargement should provide ground for discussion between both
    scanner.
    BTW, I am not trying to denigrate your scanner. The purchasing cost of the
    4490 is much lower. If I use cost to evaluation quality then the 4490 is of
    a lower quality. At this time, I cannot evaluate the dependability of the
    4490. It may only last a year of two or better? The other question is what
    is quality and how do we describe it. When designing or buying how much
    should I spend for more quality. If I spent 50% more and only get 10% more
    in quality it becomes a matter of preference.
     
    Guest, Oct 29, 2006
    #10
  11. Harry Stottle

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    I have an Olympus E-500.

    Although most of the pictures on my site were taken with compacts -
    mainly a Minolta Z1, and more recently a Panasonic Lumix FZ7.
     
    Andy Hewitt, Oct 29, 2006
    #11

  12. You'll find a few such comparisons on my scan-snippets site.
    (Epson 4990 vs. Coolscan 8000.)

    The 4490 should give the same resolution and image
    quality; its main limitation will be max the scan area.

    I have said repeatedly that the 4990 is a good value. From
    what I've seen, it's roughly on par with the 2700 dpi film
    scanners from about 5 years ago. I paid $1350 for one
    of those, way back then... and it could only scan 35 mm.

    The OP had talked about wanting to rescan all his/her
    originals.... and I can surely relate to that.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Oct 29, 2006
    #12
  13. It's the rangefinder version, and when a friend gave me the camera,
    without any instructions, I was wondering if it was even worth buying a
    film to try it out, but the cheap film and processing costs persuaded
    me. I then managed to work out what to do with it, i.e. load and wind on
    the film manually, whilst carefully checking the frame number in the
    window, close the cover for the window, set distance using the
    rangefinder, transfer that distance to the lens, take a light reading,
    or guess, set aperture on the lens, set speed on the lens, then cock the
    shutter, and I was ready to take the shot. I knew I was bound to forget
    something and I did, I forgot to close the window over the frame number,
    but it didn't have any adverse effects on the image. The compact size of
    the camera when folded was a real bonus.

    I'm glad I decided to try it out now, as it was a very cheap way of
    getting in to medium format photography. Total initial costs being,
    camera £0.00, (but usually picked up for about £30 on Ebay), out dated
    slide film, £1.00 from Ebay, and processing for the slide film £3.34, so
    the £158 outlay for the scanner was the most expensive part, but the
    results are much better than I expected.
     
    Harry Stottle, Oct 29, 2006
    #13
  14. If anyone gets the daily usage exceeded message, try here

    http://www.photonipulation.0catch.com/ (sorry about the adverts).
     
    Harry Stottle, Oct 29, 2006
    #14
  15. Harry Stottle

    Guest Guest

    I have used your settings for color positive film with success.
    Have you started to scan black and white film yet. Now I am playing with
    black and white and grey scale learning the ropes.
     
    Guest, Oct 29, 2006
    #15
  16. Harry Stottle

    Guest Guest

    Thanks for the information.
    Although I am been taking picture for decades I only have use digital
    cameras for 3 years.
    At this time, I am looking at getting a Panasonic DMC - FZ50K.
    I like the SLR but I do not like carrying extra lenses for bird photography
    or sailboat racing.
     
    Guest, Oct 29, 2006
    #16
  17. I have scanned slides, colour negatives, and also black and white
    negatives using similar settings to the ones given, and all have given
    good results.

    If anyone has a better site to host the settings and test images, please
    feel free to use the information and images from one of the free sites,
    and post a link here.
     
    Harry Stottle, Oct 29, 2006
    #17
  18. I've been really pleased with value offered by the 4490
    myself; it's quite a bargain for MF scanning. The truth
    be told, I get a nagging feeling there's an LS-9000 in
    the future for me, but the 4490 is good enough to help
    defer that eventuality.

    Dana
     
    Dana H. Myers, Oct 29, 2006
    #18
  19. Harry Stottle

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    I'd definitely recommend the Panasonic, I only upgraded to the E-500
    when I found I couldn't get the control I wanted using a compact. I
    still have the FZ7 though, it's great for video, and general shots. I'd
    have a look at the outgoing FZ30 too, these are still a damn fine
    camera.
     
    Andy Hewitt, Oct 29, 2006
    #19
  20. It's normal to use gamma 2.2 on Mac also these days...

    -espen

    PS: Your site throwed malware at me, check your advertising
    conncetion. ds
     
    Espen Stranger Seland, Oct 30, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.